Interpretation

[Brightfame52]

The difference is I believe Christ shared in our humanity so that by his death would break the power of Satan (Satan holds the power of death). And having disarmed these powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

But I don't see the word bondage that you used earlier

 

[JonC]

But I don't see the word bondage that you used earlier

Just like I dont see the word "elect" in the verse you provided.

But ok...you do not believe that men were under the bondage of sin. Fair point.

I interpret man being enslaved to sin as a bondage (the being "slaves" equating to a bondage).

Here are the verses:

And, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness
But now that you have been set free from sin
For sin will have no dominion over you,
But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin,
For one who has died has been set free from sin.


I am not saying that Jesus became a slave to sin. He willingly came under Satan's power of death (He lay down His own life). He was not bound by sin or death. He shared in our humanity, became a curse for us.


BUT if you prefer we can say we were under the "slavery" of sin instead of bondage. I am not quite getting the differences you are trying to point out between being enslaved (or imprisoned) and being under bondage.

Since I view them as synonyms we can use which ever you are more comfortable with.


In interpreting Scripture exact words (like "bondage" vs "slavery") are not the issue. The issue is the interpretation HAS TO BE of actual Scripture (not just some ideas some people think are taught by the Bible).

 

[Brightfame52]

Just like I dont see the word "elect" in the verse you provided.

But you have been critical on people who do not use exact wordage and now you're not using the exact words

 

[Brightfame52]

But ok...you do not believe that men were under the bondage of sin. Fair point.

You said Christ came under the bondage of sin where do you see that verse at?

 

[JonC]

But you have been critical on people who do not use exact wordage and now you're not using the exact words

You have misunderstood my posts.

I am not critical of people who do not use God's exact words. We use English translations of Scripture.

I am also not critical of people who hold different interpretations of Scripture.

BUT I am critical if people who say the Bible teaches something foreign to the text of Scripture (I believe the Bible teaches the text of Scripture..."what is written").


For example, people interpret the qualifications of deacons differently. But these interpretations are of God's actual words.

I interpret the slavery of sin as being a type of bondage (slavery being bondage).
You object. And that is fair.
BUT we can both turn to God's Word and see that we were mastered by sin, slaves to sin, and imprisoned by sin.
So we would agree on what the Bible says, but you disagree with my interpretation that this is bondage.
We can agree to disagree but neither of our views are unbiblical even though they are different.

But with what some people are claiming the Bible really teaches it is different. There is no passage to actually point to.

For example, a small sect of Christians believe that Jesus experienced God's wrath. If this were an interpretation then they woukd be able to provide a verse stating that Jesus experienced God's wrath (not necessarily in those exact words). It could be "God's anger fell on Jesus", "God punished Jesus", "Jesus tasted God's wrath"....something that could literally mean what they say is taught.

 

[JonC]

You said Christ came under the bondage of sin where do you see that verse at?

I already told you.

Sin and death are described in the Bible as a slavery, as a mastery over us, as an imprisonment.
You reject that sin and death held us in bondage. I concede that I interpret that slavery as a bondage.

I have already said interpretations can vary. But these need to be interpretations OF SCRIPTURE.

I interpret "slavery", "mastered by" and "imprisoned" to be a bondage. I could be wrong. You could be right that we were not actually in bondage to sin and death. I do not see your objection, but we could use slavery instead.

Now.....if you are asking where I see Jesus as being bound by sin and death....I don't. That is not what I mean.

I mean Christ tasted death for all man. He tasted that which held us in bondage and freed us from that bondage.

He tasted death, which is a power of Satan.

 

[Brightfame52]

You have misunderstood my posts.

I just want you to know you set a double standard

 

[Brightfame52]

I already told you.

But there's no scripture that says Christ came under bondage you made that up and it's a double standard. So for now on please don't be critical of others who give their interpretation of a scripture, you do the very same thing

 

[JonC]

I just want you to know you set a double standard

It is not a double standard. That is what I mean by you do not comprehend my objection.


Here is an example:

Translation: propitiation vs expiation

Interpretation: a deacon has to me married vs a deacon cannot be divorced vs a deacon cannot be a polygamist.

Using "bondage" instead of "mastered by" is a difference in translation.


Now, you believe thar anything can be a legitimate interpretation.

"Jesus wept" , per your standard, could mean Jesus felt sorry for Lazarus' dog, having lost its master.


I am not looking for EXACT words. I am looking for ACTUAL words.

 

[JonC]

But there's no scripture that says Christ came under bondage you made that up and it's a double standard. So for now on please don't be critical of others who give their interpretation of a scripture, you do the very same thing

There are no passages that say Christ died?

I have to challenge you on that one.

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil.


I am not critical of people who give interpretations of Scripture. But that is not what many have been doing.

Do you understand what tge word "interpretation" means?

An interpretation is an explanation of something. The something HAS TO BE THERE.

Interpreting Scripture explains what the words written in Scripture means. BUT the words have to be there.


This is the ONLY way we can be obedient to God in testing doctrine. This is objective. The interpretation may still be wrong but the words are actually in "what is written".

If anybody can say God teaches anything and simply post a verse that does not actually support tgat foctrine then you have no objective standard. You merely have understandings of what the Bibke "realky" teaches.

 

[JonC]

Dude says he only believes only what is taught in the direct words of scripture, but he does not post even one verse in defense of his convoluted thinking that God does not need to punish sins. Every post is his own logic. Not one verse. Hypocrite.

Ummm.....logical fallacy. You are asking to provide a verse stating what is not there.

For example, if you cannot provide a verse stating Jesus did not have a dog then He must have had a dog.

You are being silly (you do not seem to be a stupid man, I assume you are just playing the game to support your camp).

But by your logic, Mormonism is correct that Jesus came to the native Americans because the Bible does not say Jesus did not come to America.

My thinking is that Scripture is correct. At Judgment God will punish the wicked, they remain in their sins. But God forgives the sins of those who are saved.

Do I believe thar Jesus experienced God's wrath, that the law binds God, that Jesus was married, that Jesus had an extra toe, etc because Scrioture does not state otherwise? No.

I believe God's Word.

Do I believe that slavery and "mastered by" and imprisoned refer to a type of bondage? Yes. But tgat is my interpretation. I lean on what is actually written.

 

[JonC]

@Piper 2

You are also wrong in that I have posted several verses stating the basis for God forgiving sins.

Calvinists object because those passages do not include what they add.

 

[Piper 2]

You're being silly. My point is that you boast about only believing exactly what scripture says, yet in this thread, you have only one post with 3 verses. In the Divine Justice thread, you have one verse, period. It is a bunch of conjecture and illogical conclusions that you make. And if anyone questions you, you sit on your moderator high horse and say "Post verses." I say to you, stop the logical deductions, silly boy, and post verses.

 

[JonC]

@Piper 2 and @Brightfame52

I realize this can be a difficult concept (every person believes their beliefs are corret or they would not hold those beliefs).

But what I am talking about is really simple.

Here is an explanation (this one from Nelson University):

"At the most basic level, exegesis relies on the original context of a biblical passage to determine that passage’s meaning, while eisegesis uses things other than the original context of a biblical passage to determine that passage’s meaning."

What you do is called eisegesis. You rely on things other than the original context of a biblical passages meaning. For your faith to be true those other things also have to be true (the judicial philosophy you assume to be divine justice has to be correct, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Fall has to be correct, your treatment of metaphysical "things" has to be correct, etc.).

This does not mean you are necessarily wrong. But it does mean that your faith cannot be proven via Scripture (it would "fail the test" we are commanded to use for doctrine). It will always be theory because it is impossible to prove (some of it impossible to disprove).


You do offer a false accusation (a lie) in your post.

What I said was that I believe God's words. But I also said that I have an understanding that I hold at arms length. I also said that there are various interpretations, which are legitimate interpretations.


You are saying that my belief we were freed from the bondage of sin and death is unbiblical because I use "bondage" rather than "imprinsonment", "mastered by", or "enslaved".

I said that I understand "bondage" to be a synonym for "mastered by", or "enslaved".
BUT since you see a difference I grant that "slavery" would be a better choice. I just do not see the difference.

I find it telling that you do not find your objection silly.


I can and have provided passages describing us as having been in bondage to sin. While my interpretation could be wrong and by "enslaved" the passage was not meaning "bondage", I can provide the actual verse. AND slavery IS a bondage, so it is a legitimate interpretation even if it is flawed.


You cannot do that. You can only say that God had to punish Jesus for the sins of the "old man" even though that old creation will perish because the judicial philosophy you hold demands it. You can only say your theory of the Fall is correct because the Catholic Church developed it. You can only say din snd guilt can be treated as material things because your theory requires it.

That these concepts escape you is very telling, even if your philosophy was correct.

 

[JesusFan]

There are no passages that say Christ died?

I have to challenge you on that one.

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil.


I am not critical of people who give interpretations of Scripture. But that is not what many have been doing.

Do you understand what tge word "interpretation" means?

An interpretation is an explanation of something. The something HAS TO BE THERE.

Interpreting Scripture explains what the words written in Scripture means. BUT the words have to be there.


This is the ONLY way we can be obedient to God in testing doctrine. This is objective. The interpretation may still be wrong but the words are actually in "what is written".

If anybody can say God teaches anything and simply post a verse that does not actually support tgat foctrine then you have no objective standard. You merely have understandings of what the Bibke "realky" teaches.

The one who has power over death was never satan but God

 

[JesusFan]

@Piper 2 and @Brightfame52

I realize this can be a difficult concept (every person believes their beliefs are corret or they would not hold those beliefs).

But what I am talking about is really simple.

Here is an explanation (this one from Nelson University):

"At the most basic level, exegesis relies on the original context of a biblical passage to determine that passage’s meaning, while eisegesis uses things other than the original context of a biblical passage to determine that passage’s meaning."

What you do is called eisegesis. You rely on things other than the original context of a biblical passages meaning. For your faith to be true those other things also have to be true (the judicial philosophy you assume to be divine justice has to be correct, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Fall has to be correct, your treatment of metaphysical "things" has to be correct, etc.).

This does not mean you are necessarily wrong. But it does mean that your faith cannot be proven via Scripture (it would "fail the test" we are commanded to use for doctrine). It will always be theory because it is impossible to prove (some of it impossible to disprove).


You do offer a false accusation (a lie) in your post.

What I said was that I believe God's words. But I also said that I have an understanding that I hold at arms length. I also said that there are various interpretations, which are legitimate interpretations.


You are saying that my belief we were freed from the bondage of sin and death is unbiblical because I use "bondage" rather than "imprinsonment", "mastered by", or "enslaved".

I said that I understand "bondage" to be a synonym for "mastered by", or "enslaved".
BUT since you see a difference I grant that "slavery" would be a better choice. I just do not see the difference.

I find it telling that you do not find your objection silly.


I can and have provided passages describing us as having been in bondage to sin. While my interpretation could be wrong and by "enslaved" the passage was not meaning "bondage", I can provide the actual verse. AND slavery IS a bondage, so it is a legitimate interpretation even if it is flawed.


You cannot do that. You can only say that God had to punish Jesus for the sins of the "old man" even though that old creation will perish because the judicial philosophy you hold demands it. You can only say your theory of the Fall is correct because the Catholic Church developed it. You can only say din snd guilt can be treated as material things because your theory requires it.

That these concepts escape you is very telling, even if your philosophy was correct.

By what basis can God declare us now as being new creatures in Christ? NOT due to us repenting, having a new mindset, its by the shedding of the blood of very God in our stead to appease/satisfy divine wrath

 

[JonC]

The one who has power over death was never satan but God

I am not entering into a discussion with you, but posting for others who may stop by and read your comment (that they may not fall into your error).

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives (Heb 2:14-15)

This what I mean when I say each has to choose who to follow - God and His Word or men and their teachings.